Submission 187

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

– Submission by , 23 May 2026 –

I am both a mother and primary carer for my three children with disabilities, and an Unregistered NDIS Provider Allied Health Professional (Occupational Therapy, AHPRA Registered). This gives me a unique perspective on the impacts of the new proposed legislation – National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

Below I have provided:

• Details of me and my children’s personal experiences with NDIS
• The impact of the proposed legislation amendments on us
• The aspects of the proposed legislation I oppose
• Further details on each of those points for additional information.

I am mother and primary carer to:

TR – aged 12 – NDIS Participant since 2020 as a full NDIS Participant

• Accepted disability Autism Level 2.
• Autism derived disabilities include Anxiety, Eating Disorder (ARFID), Cognitive Impairments and Pathological Demand Avoidance.
• Concurrent disabilities not accepted by NDIS include ADHD, Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Dyscalculia.
• TR is at risk of being removed from NDIS based on the proposed new legislation, and because Mark Butler MP has stated that all children and adults will be reassessed according to new, stricter Access Criteria, and that Autistic Participants under 18 years of age are planned to be removed from NDIS to transition to the non-existent Thriving Kids.
• Thriving Kids will not provide the individualised support TR requires, nor will it provide essential support workers for Social and Community Participation, Support Workers for engagement in tertiary study, employment or volunteering, or Support Coordination to navigate disability complexity and multiple intersecting but not complementary systems and agencies.
• This will result in increased burden of care on me as her primary carer, with poor prospects of her becoming a productive member of society, and a high likelihood of both of us increasing demand on Federal and Queensland public services, Medicare, Centrelink payments, hospitals etc.
• Without individualised and significant long-term support, TR is unlikely to be able to move out of home in future, she will likely end up on Disability Pension, will be on lengthy public housing waiting lists, and will not be able to afford private rentals.

Submission 187

• I will be her carer for life as she will not be supported to develop her independence, with long term NDIS support investment designed to reduce long term support costs to NDIS.

ZR – aged 20 – NDIS Participant since 2019 for Autism Level 2

• ZR has disability complexities including Autism derived Anxiety, Cognitive Impairments and Pathological Demand Avoidance.
• ZR has a complex history with other concurrent disabilities including ADHD, with a birth history of neonatal prematurity, intraventricular haemorrhages and meningitis calling mild Acquired Brain Injury, hydrocephalus and developmental delay.
• Zac left school in early Year 11 due to grossly insufficient funding in his NDIS plan at that time. He was in Autistic Burnout from school for approximately 3 years.
• He is now also a NIISQ Participant since 23 December 2024 due to a motor vehicle accident when he sustained a severe traumatic brain injury while crossing the road and being hit by a car.
• Due to ZR being a NIISQ Participant, NDIS is denying all Autism supports on his NDIS plan, despite Autism not being a compensable disability.
• NDIS has removed ALL ZR’s supports from his NDIS Plan except Transport funding in November 2025 – essentially, he has been ‘technically’ removed from NDIS, without removing him officially.
• The NDIS Compensation Branch was not willing to engage with, or collaborate with, NIISQ to ensure ZR experiences no gaps in his supports, which I believe is their mutual obligation. NIISQ did attempt to engage and collaborate with NDIS, inconclusively.
• I do not have the personal or practical or financial resources to pursue the removal of all funding from his NDIS Plan at ART. The S100 was rejected in April 2026. As ZR had no funding in his plan, I was unable to obtain additional evidence – and NDIS did not provide a Statement of Reasons for rejection.
• ZR’s application for Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) in October 2025 was also rejected in March 2026. NDIS had previously advised me that NIISQ is responsible for Traumatic Brain Injury home modifications, however NDIS was responsible for Traumatic Brain Injury SDA funding. NIISQ does not provide SDA funding. Despite this, NDIS rejected the application citing NIISQ should provide for all aspects of his housing needs. I am about to submit a S100 Review for SDA rejection, however I cannot supply additional evidence without NDIS funding in his plan, so this will also be rejected.
• I am currently unable to work due to my children’s support needs, and the significant challenges of navigating multiple systems, NIISQ and NDIS, without NDIS Support Coordination for ZR.

AR – aged 20 (ZR’s twin) – NDIS Participant since 2019 for Autism Level 3 and Hearing Impairment (bilateral Cochlear Implants).

• The combination of Deafness and Autism is incredibly challenging. He also has Autism derived Anxiety and is at extreme risk of social isolation.

Submission 187

• AR also has concurrent ADHD, and a borderline Intellectual Impairment (IQ just above 70). He presented at school with significant learning difficulties.
• AR left school at the end of Year 10, being unable to tolerate engaging with school, and without adequate NDIS supports and funding, he remained in severe Autistic Burnout for more than 3 years.
• AR requires extensive NDIS supports, including therapies, support coordination and support workers (daily living and social and community participation), and employment supports (support workers, employment readiness capacity building). With these extensive supports, he may be able to work part-time in supported employment in the long-term. He risks losing these supports with the new legislation and will go backwards.
• AR currently has a good NDIS Plan with sufficient funding to meet his needs. Prior to this plan, created in November 2024, he had the same NDIS Plan funding since 2019, which was grossly inadequate to meet his disability support needs.
• With the new legislation, and NDIS Participant reassessments, and tightening of access and further restricted approved NDIS supports, AR’s trajectory once again looks grim – if his supports are significantly reduced, particularly Social and Community Participation and Capacity Building funding, which is highly likely, he will not become a productive citizen.
• The difference in AR’s progress towards independence is astounding since he has received his November 2024 NDIS Plan with good funding – his trajectory towards becoming a productive member of society is significantly greater because of the increased investment in his disability supports. Without this, I do not doubt AR would have deteriorated after leaving school with few employment prospects in future, and reduced independence skills, with poor wellbeing and mental health.

Personal and Professional Impacts on My Children and on My Carer Role, Due To The Proposed Legislation Changes:

• All three of my children individually present with highly complex functional impairments and disability support requirements. Combined, my three children’s support needs create a significant and unsustainable carer load. It is incumbent on NDIS, based on its ‘original intent’, to provide supports to my children beyond what a normal parent would provide to children of the same age - NDIS is not currently doing this sufficiently, and with the new legislation changing the definition of ‘parental support’, it will be impossible to obtain supports for my children beyond that of a typical parent.
• NDIS funded Respite/Short Term Accommodation will be tightened further with this legislation, as will Support Worker hours, which reduce my carer burden and burnout, enabling me to earn through employment, boosting my Superannuation, and assisting our family in a cost-of-living crisis. This is even further away now with the proposed legislation changes.
• Carers Gateway, the only mainstream Respite option, is only for emergencies, is not appropriate for most situations, is not suited to my children’s individualised support needs, and has proven impossible to obtain support from, with staff citing having no funding left for supports or respite.

• My intensive and unpredictable carer responsibilities impact my employability, which forced me to start my own business in NDIS, being the only sector that financially viable compared to Private Health Insurance, Medicare, DVA or Privately funded services – most people can no longer afford to pay a gap, and mandated DVA bulk billing is below service cost.
• NDIS, being market stewards, strongly encouraged people like me to do NDIS work, hhowever in recent years, my NDIS rate (not income) has remained unchanged for 7 years. Now, the new legislation (a policy choice) will reduce this rate further below service costs, will remove small businesses and sole traders (me) from the NDIS in favour of large corporations, will cause mass unemployment, and will remove choice and control for my children.
• This means I, and my children, will lose access to trusted exceptional supports that have taken me considerable time and effort, with trial and error, to find. I know, from experience, that larger organisations are impersonal, with unreachable corporate managers and decision makers, that don’t care about me or my children. Most eemployees are contractors that move jobs frequently, are often new allied health graduates with minimal support or supervision, and inexperienced support workers.
• If the new legislation passes, I will again have to find new supports that are likely to be of lesser quality compared to our current supports. That is if my children have NDIS funding for those supports in the first place – which is looking less likely based on the proposed legislation.
• I like smaller business and sole traders in NDIS because I can develop a trust relationship and have easy access to the business owner to discuss issues. The legislation creates a further barrier to ensuring quality, trusted and accessible NDIS supports. NDIS Registration and larger corporations DO NOT ensure quality or safe supports, or best use of NDIS funding.
• Due to my carer role, I have minimal to no income in my NDIS business most of the time, severely insufficient Superannuation, and am scared for my future. NDIS, and other Government Agencies, do not help me address my issues in my carer role. Government budgets rarely consider or address the needs of Carers, given Carers provide ‘slave labour’ and contribute massively to GDP. Most Government budget items make carers lives worse.
• This legislation is no different – with reduced NDIS access and support funding, carers are the most adversely affected after NDIS Participants and are mostly women. Labor purports to be supportive of women, but this legislation and the recent budget announcements, will drive women back ‘into the home’, out of employment, risking increased exposure to abuse, lost skills, loss of income and superannuation, increased financial vulnerability, increased chronic disease and mental health presentations, increased use of wider public funded services, and we are SICK OF IT!!!
• I am unemployable because I often require urgent time off without notice to meet the disability support needs of my children. I can only work a few hours a week.
• I already have developed significant chronic health issues due to stress.
• If my husband loses his job or is unable to work, we will be in a severe financial crisis in a cost-of-living crisis. This could happen anytime due to his high-risk work as an Electrician.

Submission 187

• Income Protection insurance is depleting his Superannuation at an alarming rate due to this high risk, and if needed, will not replace his current income which we are highly reliant on. I am unable to get Income Protection insurance due to my poorly treated chronic conditions, and inability to consistently work in my business for 2 consecutive years, with a very poor income.
• I am no longer able to work in NDIS in my Occupational Therapy business (sole trader), which was highly flexible around my carer responsibilities, due to market changes driven by the Labor Government (NDIS market stewards) and legislation changes. This means I will have to retrain to work in other sectors or give up my Occupational Registration with AHPRA because I cannot meet my ‘recency of practice’ requirements. I worked HARD for my degree and development of my skills, all to be prevented from working and earning a decent wage. Most other sectors are remunerated extremely poorly, as was found by the recent Fair Work Commission that Allied Health Professionals are underpaid by 35%, mostly women.
• I am not eligible for any Government benefits except for Carer’s allowance which is only around $77.00/week per child. This does not remotely replace my lost income, lost Superannuation, assist me to address my chronic health conditions, let alone meet the needs of my disabled children/family.
• There will be no supports or services available to my children as I age to remove my carer burden, and what happens to my children when I die when they are not provided with sufficient NDIS supports for life? This is my worst fear due to this current legislation – supports after I cannot be a carer or after I die are very difficult to come by now – if this legislation passes, it will be impossible.

In the proposed NDIS Legislation Amendment 2026, I totally oppose:

1. The use of Algorithms without human oversight for NDIS Assessments and NDIS Plan Funding Determinations.

This has already proven dangerous with RoboDebt and My Aged Care. It has been proven illegal in RoboDebt – writing a legislation before using the algorithm doesn’t excuse imposing harm on NDIS Participants or informal supports or shifting costs to other levels of Government.

2. The significant increase in Ministerial powers to modify the NDIS legislation without accountability, checks and balances, genuine co-design with all layers the disability community, and parliamentary oversight.

The proposed powers are dangerous, ableist, enable disability discrimination and human rights breaches, and create significant disadvantage to people with disabilities, particularly those who live remotely or regionally, or are financially limited.

3. The use of modified I-CAN and CIQ-R (or similarly modified standardised and evidence-based assessments) for the Support Needs Assessments.

Submission 187

Modifications to standardised and evidence-based assessments are no longer evidence-based.

4. The use of non-evidence-based Support Needs Assessments by non-clinical NDIS Planners to determine NDIS Plan Funding, where the tool is biased towards physical disabilities.

Implementation by unqualified, barely trained, and largely ableist NDIS Planners with no disability experience, is unsafe and not evidence-based. Independent research on the proposed Support Needs Assessment is required to ensure it is fit for purpose for ALL people with disabilities.

The original assessments are required to be completed by Allied Health Professionals, and for the modified versions, qualified and clinical oversight is even more important for individual assessments because it is no longer standardised or evidence-based. Brief training of NDIS Planners is dangerous to NDIS Participants.

5. The 10 percent cut of Capacity Building Supports.

This pushes financial and practical responsibility onto State and Territory budgets.

It reduces disabled people’s access to limited mainstream supports and forces them to find money for private or high-gap services – which most cannot afford.

It risks repeating the harm identified in the Disability Royal Commission.

It will render many Allied Health Professionals, mostly women, abruptly unemployed.

It will cause mass business closures, again, mostly women.

Women will be forced to leave the workforce (majority of Support Workers, carers and Allied Health Professionals) which breaches their human rights to equitably access work, income, and job security, which would otherwise improve their standard of living, reduce their risk of abuse, improve wellbeing, reduce chronic disease and mental health issues.

Women are already significantly disadvantaged due to equity barriers imposed on women due to a patriarchal society and Government. The Labor Government frequently states their support of improving equity for women, yet their policies say the exact opposite and women’s equity is getting worse.

6. The 50 percent cut of Social and Community Participation funding.

The ‘original intent of NDIS’ was to promote inclusion, and community, study and employment access and participation, which increases spending for economic

Submission 187

benefit, increases employment opportunities for women, and prevents harm to Participants as identified in the Disability Royal Commission.

These cuts predominantly hurt female carers who will exit the workplace/income opportunities; return home to isolation, exhaustion, and increase vulnerability to domestic violence and financial coercion; and reduces their right to earn and receive Superannuation, increasing inequity and financial reliance on partners or leading to homelessness.

7. The changing definitions of ‘functional capacity’, ‘parental responsibility’, and ‘capacity building supports’ reclassified as ‘treatment’.

This restricts prospective and current NDIS Participant’s access to reasonable and necessary supports, increases the burden on, and unemployment of, mostly women carers, and increases financial and practical responsibility onto already scarce State and Territory public services. See also 5. And 6. above for additional impacts.

8. The betrayal by Government for blatant conflicts of interest, Disability Discrimination, human rights violations, reduced justice and equity, by:

   8.1. being the creator of the algorithm and support needs assessments, 8.2. implementing the algorithm and support needs assessments internally, 8.3. determining NDIS Plan budgets (without individualisation for NDIS Participants), without human oversight and risk assessments, 8.4. determining whether NDIS Participants have met THEIR requirements completing all ‘treatments’ they deem necessary, 8.5. shifting Capacity Building supports to ‘treatments’ to State and Territory Health systems, 8.6. shifting costs and incredible burden onto carers and families 8.7. focusing harmful changes on specific cohorts of NDIS Participants – Autistic children and adults, children with developmental delay, people with psychosocial disability, and people with other ‘invisible disabilities’. 8.8. shifting costs to NDIS Participants by forcing them to pay gaps under Medicare instead of keeping responsibility for the full cost of disability and functional capacity related supports 8.9. creating barriers to ‘lifelong support’ by frequent re-assessments and changing ‘proof’ requirements to remain on the scheme, as was promised as part of the ‘original intent of the scheme’ 8.10. ignoring individual medical and allied health evidence, creating barriers to access by removing contextual factors from all processes, creating barriers for fair and equitable processes, disadvantaging regional and remote NDIS Participants, and disadvantaging/picking on extremely vulnerable citizens. 8.11. removing NDIS Participant rights and human rights to fair processes, justice, community inclusion, or having safeguards that actively protect NDIS Participants from harm (Disability Royal Commission),

Submission 187

8.12.

preferencing the use of a limited number of ‘large corporate preferred providers’ (effectively removing of small businesses and sole traders from the scheme, which comprises the largest proportion of Support for Participants) which removes Choice and Control, disrupts Capacity Building progress, reduces NDIS Participants and carers access to the meaningful, trusted and quality services they have worked hard to find.

8.13.

adding significant powers for the NDIS Minister that removes Parliamentary oversight, which

• enables arbitrary decisions without consideration of risk to Participants or Providers, which
• enables blatant disability discrimination by making arbitrary changes for specific cohorts – such as the current disability discrimination and human rights violation taking place with removal of Autistic and Developmental Delay children from the scheme,
• enables removing people with disabilities’ right to Early Intervention under NDIS Section 25 – with Autistic children and children with Developmental Delay being removed from the scheme for nearly a year and BEFORE the legislation has passed
• enables the Government to remove 50 percent of Social and Community Participation funding, and 10 percent of Capacity Building funding, from all NDIS Plans, without individual risk assessments being completed and risks/support needs addressed.

9. The Government placing political policy ahead of NDIS Participant rights to appeal, to genuine co-design, human/disability rights, safety, and NDIS Early Intervention.

Government Policy should not drive public services to the extent that Ministers can make legislative, rule or guidance changes without due process, co-design and consultation, and scrutiny by Parliament, Disability Discrimination and Human Rights agencies, ACCC and NACC.

Australia is not an Autocratic or Fascist country – or it shouldn’t be, but it feels like that is where we are heading. We are a Democracy, and this legislation does not uphold democratic principles, and requires a primary focus on Government services TO all its citizens, without significant benefit to certain sectors, industries or other interested parties, to the detriment of vulnerable citizens.

It is not the Government’s right to decide what is ‘best’ for disabled citizens, which removes their agency, rights and opportunities. This is ableist, patriarchal, discriminatory, infantilising, patronising, restrictive, autocratic, and rights averse.

10.

The removal of comprehensive safeguards of NDIS Participant Rights and Human Rights from the proposed legislation.

The Government has a responsibility to provide public services through excellent fiscal management to ensure any proposed legislation does not enforce

Submission 187

unnecessary limits or removal of citizen’s agency, rights, and opportunities. The Government should ensure citizen’s affected by new or amended legislation are deply and genuinely included in co-design of the development of the legislation.

The Government has done no such thing. Tokenistic consultation and non- disclosure agreements, with only certain stakeholders being ‘invited to the table’, is NOT co-design, is NOT genuine, and doesn’t protect disabled citizens from harm.

The proposed legislation itself has removed NDIS Participant access to fair and just processes, appeals, the ability to appeal all NDIS decision making, the ability to easily obtain advocacy or legal representation to participate in Reviews of Decisions and ART, but the Government has full access to legal assistance, and spends 10’s of millions on legal representation at ART against unrepresented NDIS Participants. And still - NDIS are found to have made the wrong decision at least 70 percent of the time for those ART applications that proceed fully through the process and don’t settle beforehand.

It is terrifying that the Government is planning to reduce the powers of ART from July 2026, so NDIS Participant rights are further eroded. Mark Butler MP also stated at his Press Conference that the Federal Court also creates ‘barriers’ to NDIS reform (or cuts) – which means he anticipates the proposed legislation is likely to be found illegal, and the best way to prevent Federal Court ‘barriers’ to NDIS reform (cuts) is to also reduce their powers to force the Government to remove illegal aspects of the legislation – it wouldn’t surprise me if this is coming next.

The Government being biased market stewards and removing independence

from NDS market decision making, by:

• Preferencing large corporations and instilling ‘preferred providers’ for Plan Management, Support Coordination, Therapy services in Thriving Kids, and pushing out small businesses and sole traders.
• Ensuring cost containment by rejecting the independent pricing report that didn’t meet their agenda, and commissioning a new so-called ‘independent’ pricing report that magically met their agenda.
• Refusing the release the original independent pricing report to the public, despite compulsion via Federal Government processes.
• Publicly denouncing ‘unregistered provides’ as committing ‘rorts’ and ‘fraud’ when there is no evidence that being NDIS registered prevents either of these things.
• Driving a narrative into the public domain that created distrust and hatred of NDIS Participants, Unregistered NDIS Provides, Allied Health Professionals and Disability Advocacy organisations.
• Documenting examples on the NDIS website, verbally at press conferences and via mainstream and social media of Allied Health Professionals ‘gouging’ and ‘doing the wrong thing’ with Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy often used as case studies that did not reflect our reality on pricing. particularly around comparative pricing between NDIS and other schemes. Example – There are no Allied Health Professionals that can

Submission 187

viably provide Bulk Billed services under Medicare due to the rebate only being around $70 for 20 minutes (after which there is a gap). Occupational Therapy services cannot be provided for only 20 minutes due to the nature of our work, which is always misunderstood by Government. The cost travel to home visits (usually required), and 1-1.5 hours of service, far exceeds the rebate, with gap costs imposed on Medicare users. Also, Occupational Therapists are forced to Bulk Bill under DVA for White and Gold Card holders which is not actually financially viable at all - which is why it is so difficult for Veterans to find Occupational Therapy services.

12. The Governments assertion that ‘NDIS Registration’ will increase NDIS Participant safety.

There is no evidence to support this assertion, it is an opinion or a marketing strategy the Government is using to publicly garner support for mandatory NDIS Registration, at great expense to NDIS Providers, which reduces viability of their business due to additional, but avoidable, extra costs each year.

NDIS Registered Providers also commit fraud. NDIS Registered Providers have access to Agency Managed Plan funding without human oversight – Self and Plan Managed safeguards exist by Participants and Plan Managers reviewing invoices before they are paid.

13. The Governments assertion that there is no evidence Capacity Building Therapy Supports increased NDIS Participant function or Social and Community Participation.

This has been used as a justification to cut Social and Community Participation funding by 50%!! Data has not been collected or analysed by the Government that links Capacity Building supports directly to reduced or stagnant Social and Community Participation.

Therapeutic supports have been required to focus on Participant led goals, not Government agenda. T

he NDIS frequently sought expensive Functional Capacity Reports rather than Therapist Progress Reports which would have provided clear measures and data showing increased capacity and engagement in social and community activities.

This Government assertion does not take into account Participant preferences or other confounding factors that are not within the control of Therapists - financial situation, preference for staying home, lack of opportunities, homelessness, abuse by family members, Participant inability to engage effectively with Therapists due to their disability and requiring a longer term approach, long delays waiting for NDIS decisions and frequent rejections for funding (i.e. Social and Community Participation, Employment supports, Daily Living Supports, Therapy Supports,

Submission 187

Group Program funding etc), limited or non-existent remote and regional supports to name a few.

How on earth did they assess the evidence base to make this assertion?

14. The use of Redbridge Group to advise on public narratives to support NDIS cost- cutting policy and agenda, BEFORE the NDIS Review (Bonyhady) was completed.

This speaks for itself – the agenda by both Labor and Liberal National Coalition to make significant cuts to NDIS has existed for years.

The strategy appears to be:

• design the cuts, then find the evidence, and if you can’t find the evidence,
• make it up, or misrepresent the data, and if that doesn’t work,
• manipulate the market with fake ‘independent pricing reviews’ to make it financially unviable in favour of preferred providers, and if that doesn’t work,
• use a marketing firm to create a supportive narrative and hammer the media with it, without providing the full story and truth, and if that doesn’t work,
• hammer stakeholders with frequent system changes that can’t be kept up with to keep them distracted from what you are really doing, and if that doesn’t work,
• discredit key stakeholders to garner public support and incite hatred and distrust in those stakeholders, and if that doesn’t work,
• pretend to do stakeholder consultations frequently, with biased survey questions, and with short timeframes, to exhaust the stakeholders and then ignore the affected stakeholders feedback, and if that doesn’t work,
• consult with a group of reform-supportive stakeholders bound by non- disclosure agreements and publicly say ‘the disability community wants this’, and after all that,
• submit a terrifyingly cruel legislation amendment bill that has so many breaches of rights for the stakeholders, and so many opportunities for harm and Government control, they end up having to write very long submissions like this.

Simple. For the Government. Not for NDIS Participants or their supports.

15. The Governments push to imply NDIS is ‘welfare’ not an Insurance Scheme.

The NDIS was built as an insurance scheme intentionally. To brand the NDIS to the public as ‘welfare’ by implying NDIS Participants are like ‘dole bludgers’ is abhorrent. To imply the NDIS is unsustainable and unaffordable, when Medicare, Centrelink, ATO and DVA are never framed in this way, is unacceptable.

NDIS is not WELFARE. It is an INSURANCE SCHEME designed to enshrine the rights of disabled people, with universal access, Participant driven goals, choice and control, where NDIS Participants can access ALL the supports they need to live an ordinary life like the rest of the citizens of Australia.

Submission 187

THIS was the ‘original intent of the scheme’.

Australia can easily afford it - NDIS is cashflow positive for the economy. There are many other areas that, with political will, savings in the budget could be made - instead of harming NDIS Participants with cuts to their direct services. HANDS OFF!

The Government is effectively removing ‘support for life’.

Under this proposed legislation, ‘support for life’ - a key tenet of the NDIS Scheme at inception - is seriously at risk.

Current NDIS Participants were accepted onto the scheme for as long as they needed it - for life. Now, this legislation proposes all NDIS Participants will be reassessed based on changed access criteria, their supports will be curtailed, and once exited from the NDIS, ex-Participants literally have nowhere to go but still have the support needs they were determined to have when they entered the scheme.

The Governments increasing push for Participants to exhaust undisclosed ‘treatments’ before accessing the NDIS.

This legislation does not accommodate whether these unknown ‘treatments’ are accessible, appropriate or affordable. There is no disclosure how the required treatments will be determined, and no guarantee clinical recommendations from Specialists and Allied Health Professionals will be adhered to or accepted.

The Government ignoring the recommendations and 5-year pathway outlined in the NDIS Review and rushing through legislation that opposes these recommendations.

The NDIS Review by Bruce Bonyhady was not ‘perfect’ - but it was MUCH better than what is being proposed in this legislation.

The NDIS Review focused on improving INTERNAL NDIS processes, reducing bureaucracy and burden on Participants, reducing carer burden on informal supports, ensuring he rights of Participants and their informal supports were upheld, reducing the frequency of re-assessments, enabling security of consistent supports for longer, ensuring quicker reviews for support changes, ensuring fluctuating disabilities were accommodated, and keeping Early Intervention investment was kept for long term benefit.

This legislation is almost the opposite of all those things - the focus is on NDIS Participants directly experiencing increased bureaucracy, loss of essential supports, loss of rights, increased control measures on Participants, and no safety net if removed from the scheme. It should be thrown out.

Submission 187

The Government’s lack of transparency without means to compel it.

The government has frequently denied FOI applications or sent them heavily redacted, to avoid scrutiny, transparency, or being held accountable.

The Government is yet to release the original Independent Pricing Report they have hidden from public view under ‘cabinet privilege’.

I believe the Government has misrepresented information about NDIS, NDIS Participants, NDIS data, and NDIS Providers, through misinformation, manipulation of data, and withholding the full context of their claims and assertions (because the full context would weaken or prove wrong their assertions).

The Ministerial protections mean people with disabilities and NDIS providers cannot seek justice because they are protected from being sued or held accountable for ‘dodgy deals with big business’, defamation of certain types of NDIS professionals or services, or causing harm to NDIS stakeholders.

The Government’s lack of genuine co-design with the disability community by:

• engaging with large providers that stand to benefit from future Government contracts,
• excluding the opinions of people with disabilities, Peak Bodies and Disability Advocacy organisations,
• using Non-Disclosure Agreements to reduce transparency, and
• using increasing amounts of redactions and refusals for FOI applications.

The Government’s use of phrases such as ‘over-diagnosis’, ‘return to the original intent of the scheme’, ‘mild to moderate developmental delay and autism’, ‘fraud’, ‘grifters’, ‘rorters’, ‘scoundrels’ etc.

These claims are largely unfounded, non-evidence based, misinformation, and has incited widespread public suspicion and hatred of people with disabilities and NDIS Providers.

Fraud is minimal – only 24 convictions to date, with expenditure on ‘fraud crackdown’ approaching $900,000,000 (with more expenditure planned in the next budget), while recovered funding is only around $133,000,000. This does not include potential fraud recoveries being missed because NDS Participants may submit fraud claims (which may not be fraud at all), and often these are closed without investigation.

This is not ‘value for money’ – which incidentally is the most frequent excuse NDIS Planners use for denying essential supports to NDIS Participants.

Additional details below.

Submission 187

Additional Details

I have provided more detail on some of these points below:

• The use of Algorithms without human oversight for NDS Assessments and NDIS Plan Funding Determinations
  • Repeats RoboDebt and MyAgedCare harm and deaths.
  • Algorithms cannot follow a conversational flow that enables the identification of serious functional capacity limitations or severe risks
    • Based on initial feedback from Support Needs Assessment Trial Participants, questions are too limited, structured, rigid, and biased towards physical disabilities
    • Support Needs Assessments are being completed by NDIS Planners with no clinical qualifications or disability experience, with insufficient and undisclosed entered into an Algorithm ‘black box’ that is built around generic ‘block funding’, rather than ensuring the safety of NDIS Participants through appropriate individually derived NDIS Plan funding.
  • Algorithms do not consider contextual influences on functional capacity and support needs.
    • Environment – Internal (body) physical, intellectual, neurological, psychosocial, or sensory impairments, for example, are not the only factors to affect a person’s functional capacity. Disability and functional capacity are directly impacted by the various environments they participate in:
      • physical environment
      • social environment
      • cultural environment
      • political environment
      • system structural barriers
      • family environment
      • home environment
      • school or work environment
    • Social factors – capacity of informal supports, whether a person is or is not socially isolated, has friends, has a support network, can leave their home to participate socially, is estranged from family, an only child, is a parent carer themselves, has multiple children or a partner with disabilities, is gender diverse, has communication challenges, is homeless, cultural or religious beliefs and customs etc is extremely important information when determining functional capacity and engagement with the environments they participate in at home and in the community.
    • Employment factors – employers and Job Access have very limited scope to provide adjustments to workplaces ‘where reasonable and practicable’. Whereas NDIS Participants who require support workers, or highly specialised or custom assistive technology, for example, cannot obtain these supports without NDIS funding.

Submission 187

Key life transitions – starting school, leaving school, starting tertiary study, volunteering, getting and keeping a job, getting married,

pregnancy, having children, ageing, menopause, losing parent carers, family estrangement, experiencing serious healthconditions (cancer, autoimmune), adjusting to a new disability (e.g. amputation) etc are very important considerations when determining functional capacity and support needs for NDS Plan Funding allocation purposes.

Algorithms cannot consider:

• Concurrent Disabilities - intersecting influences of concurrent disabilities with the NDIS accepted disability, multiple NDISaccepted disabilities, or chronic diseases/mental health conditions,newly acquired disabilities or serious health conditions afterNDIS Acceptance, newly acquired compensable injuries where thesupport needs for the NDIS accepted disability still exist butmay overlap with the compensable injury.
• All disability types – feedback on Support Needs Assessments trial is that the questions only consider the ‘best day’ function, do not ask questions relevant to ‘invisible disabilities’, and have a physicaldisability bias.
• Individualised presentations of each disability – the Algorithm will likely be based on generic assumptions about diagnoses that maynot apply to the individual NDIS Participant being assessed. Diagnoses will be known to the NDAS as this is likely required atNDIS Access to determine permanency of disability, permanencycannot be determined without considering diagnosis, which determineswhich evidence-based treatments need to be exhausted beforeAccess is granted. This contradicts Government claims thatdiagnosis won’t be required when assessing functionalcapacity.
• Fluctuations in functional capacity – Algorithms cannot predictwhen, the severity, the frequency or duration of likely fluctuationsin disability, to ensure adequate NDS Plan funding for thatindividual. Assumptions of fluctuations cannot be made accuratelyper diagnosis type. Fluctuations may impact other disabilities orhealth conditions.
• Accessibility barriers – different NDIS Participants require different disability accommodations to participate effectively in theSupport Needs Assessment, or may require representation, assistive technology, interpreters, Auslaninterpreters, braille, reduced cognitive load, simplified language etc. NDIS Participant’s withcompromised self-insight may over or under state theirfunction, with intellectual disability may not understand thequestions, with Autism may mask their disabilities or be unableto speak, or may prefer video, phone or in-person assessments.
• Cultural differences and sensitivities – see 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 above.

Submission 187

The significant increase in Ministerial powers to modify the NDIS legislation:

2.1. which amounts to extreme, autocratic over-reach by NDS Ministers who are strongly influenced by policy rather than the best interests of NDIS Participants

2.2. which risks serious exertion of control mechanisms, and subsequent erosion of NDIS Participant’s rights,

2.3. Which is exempt from Parliamentary analysis, scrutiny by people with disability or disability organisations

2.4. and does not enshrine ‘co-design’ into the legislation, as was promised in the ‘original intent of the scheme’.

2.5. it allows the NDIS Minister to:

- change plan funding for specific cohorts
- make arbitrary decisions without truly independent clinical or fiscal evidence, and without careful risk assessments being undertaken
- override or ignore clinical or medical advice or recommendations about the support needs and risks of NDIS Participants by their treating parties.
- create barriers to NDIS Participant's access to fair assessment processes, rights to appeal, human rights,
- action future changes to NDIS Legislation at any time that results in NDIS Participants being exited from the scheme (no 'lifelong support' as originally promised by Labor), reduce funding to or expel specific NDIS Participant cohorts or disability types (which is discriminatory).

The use of non-evidence-based Support Needs Assessments by non-clinical NDS Planners to determine NDS Plan Funding, where the tool is biased towards physical disabilities.

Feedback I have received from a NDIS Participant and Allied Health Professional who participated in the limited trials of the new Support Needs Assessments confirmed it:

3.1. does NOT contain questions relevant for people with invisible disabilities,

3.2. does not consider environmental, family, community, employment factors,

3.3. id does not consider the interplay of multiple disabilities

3.4. id does not consider the impact of health conditions on disability and functional capacity.

3.5. focuses on the support needs of a Participant ‘on a good day’ which will further reduce plan funding.

3.6. Introduces extremely serious risk to NDIS Participants when these and other factors are not considered with a clinical lens.

NDIS Planners who will be conducting Support Needs Assessments are:

3.7. Unqualified

3.8. Inexperienced

3.9. Inadequately trained or knowledgeable in disability/disability assessment

3.10. potentially ableist and unsympathetic towards NDS Participants

Submission 187

Work in what is touted to be a ‘toxic culture’ biased against people with disabilities

NDIS Planners ARE NOT A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT TO CONDUCT SUPPORT NEEDS ASSESSMENTS compared to qualified, ethical and independently Registered and monitored Allied Health Professionals:

3.12. NDIS Planners do not have clinical expertise to accurately assess the impact of disability on Participant functional capacity.

3.12.1. Brief ‘training’ of NDIS Planners by an internal Allied Health Professional does NOT replace 4 years of university and multiple years of disability experience.

4. The reduction of Social and Community Participation funding

Social and Community Participation was one of the most important tenets of the ‘original intent of the scheme’ to end institutionalisation, exclusion, social isolation, poor wellbeing and associated health, mental health and chronic disease risks to people with disabilities and their carers.

4.1. This is a breach of the UNCRPD agreement signed by Australia.

4.2. The reduction of Social and Community Participation funding because it directly impacts carers, mostly women, by forcing them out of work and back home.

5. The removal of comprehensive safeguards of NDIS Participant Rights and Human Rights from the legislation.

5.1. The Government is a signatory of the UNCRPD.

5.2. This legislation does not uphold the principles in the UNCRPD agreement and clearly breaches the rights of NDIS Participants and people with disabilities, their informal supports, and quite possibly.

5.3. Even the Directors/Owners of NDIS Provider businesses have rights under the UNCRPD.

6. The Government being biased market stewards, and removing independence from NDIS market decision making:

6.1. The Government initially strongly encouraged the development of a large NDIS Provider base.

6.2. The Government proceeded to make subsequent sudden, intermitted, non-transparent and unpredictable changes to the NDIS Price Guide in particular, without adequate warning and with the expectation changes be immediately implemented. This created an atmosphere of distrust, fear and exhaustion in NDIS Providers and NDIS Participants.

6.3. The Government ceased increasing Allied Health Professionals NDIS capped rates for 7 years despite clear evidence that other insurance schemes rates are higher than NDIS. E.g. Occupational Therapy has remained $193.99/hour for 7 years under NDIS.

Submission 187

Equivalent Australian Insurance Schemes:

• $225.58/hour plus GST
• $234.90/hour plus GST
• $225.58/hour plus GST
• $227.25/hour plus GST
• Private rates for Occupational Therapists in Australia range from $200/hour to $250/hour plus GST.
• Medicare rebate amount is based on a typical rate of $217/hour.

The Government, aligned with their history of increasing lack of transparency, have withheld the original Independent Pricing Report from public view despite compulsion to release it, after which they commissioned a private company that would give the advice they wanted.

The Government is now introducing ‘preferred providers’, which limits NDIS Participant Choice and Control – an original and important tenet of NDIS.

The Government is also about to introduce historically expensive ‘mandatory registration’ to remove small and sole Providers who make up most NDIS Providers in Australia.

The Government is stating that Mandatory Registration will increase ‘quality’ of NDIS Provider services, reduce ‘fraud’, and increase NDIS Participant ‘safety’.

• There is no evidence to support these assertions.
• In fact, there is a mix of Registered and Non-Registered Providers who have been accused of, or convicted of (24 people), fraud.
• There is considerable backlash from NDIS Participants about the agenda of Government to reduce their Choice and Control of Providers.

The Government’s assertion that there is no evidence Capacity Building Therapy Supports increased NDIS Participant function or Social and Community Participation. This has been used as a justification to cut Social and Community Participation funding by 50% and Capacity Building by 10 percent!!

• There is no evidence the Government has provided that directly links Therapeutic Interventions to Participant Function or Social and Community Participation, particularly there is no evidence that Therapists are solely responsible.
• The Government was not even measuring this or collecting this data. It is only an assumption or opinion.
• Therapists are not solely responsible for improving NDIS Participant functional capacity. Other parties that have a role to play including (but not limited to):
  • General Practitioners
  • Medical Specialists
  • Disability progression
  • NDIS Participant choice
  • Age of NDIS Participant – what Social and Community Participation level is appropriate depends on life stages.

Submission 187

• 7.2.7. Other health or disability factors that may not be the NDIS Accepted disability.
• 7.2.8. Random life events that derail progress.
• 7.2.9. Lack of NDIS Funding to achieve goals. Recent further reductions and the introduction of ‘funding periods’ has made Therapeutic Supports ineffective, or unethical to even try to provide a service. E.g. what can an Occupational Therapist possibly do with 1 hour per month locked into monthly funding periods, when travel costs are not cost effective to work on environment-specific goals or to assess equipment needs or home modifications in the home? It is unethical to even try, let alone impossible.
• 7.2.10. NDIS requesting multiple Functional Assessment Reports instead of Progress Reports, so that data has not been collected.
• 7.2.11. NDIS has never provided Occupational Therapists with a clear Functional Report template.
  • 7.2.11.1. Other insurance schemes do provide templates, such as Workers Compensation, DVA and Comcare.
  • 7.2.11.2. Other insurance schemes report requirements are much shorter, succinct, do not require medicolegal levels of evidence (which is still not enough and isn’t read anyway)
  • 7.2.11.3. Other Insurance schemes operate under the premise that Allied Health Professionals clinical opinions are valid, and they use internal Allied Health Professional advisors to ensure this as required.
  • 7.2.11.4. Other insurance schemes allow Allied Health Professionals to speak directly with Claims Managers/Delegates and with Allied Health Professional Advisors, for quick and collaborative decision making – significantly reducing delays to decisions.
  • 7.2.11.5. Allied health professionals based in Rehabilitation Provider services are the ones to determine their own funding, which is reviewed and approved/modified by the Claims Manager/Delegate, collaboratively.
  • 7.2.11.6. Measurable goals are used by Allied Health Professionals and Clients, but there is an understanding that other external factors influence outcomes, and there are no surprises due to close communication between stakeholders.
  • 7.2.11.7. Life Satisfaction Indicators and similar client surveys are used by Rehabilitation Providers to track wellbeing changes over time, as another measure of success of the program.

Submission 187

8. The Government’s push to imply NDSI is ‘welfare’ not an Insurance Scheme.

8.1. By doing this, it garners public support for cost-cuts, rather than emphasises the rights of NDIS Participants to appropriate support to ‘live an ordinary life’ commensurate with what the rest of the non-disabled population lives. These cuts are then enshrined in the legislation without public resistance.

8.2. The Government seems to have forgotten that their role is to ensure all Australian Citizens benefit from collected taxes and excises, and from other Government incomes. Not just big business or the top 1% ‘rich’ people.

8.3. NDIS has been framed as a ‘cost blowout’, yet Per Capita completed an analysis and report that showed for every $1 spent on NDIS by the Government, it returned $2.25 to the economy – a positive impact for Government also. It is NOT a cost. NDIS Participants are not a line item.

8.4. The Government has forgotten the ‘slave labour’ contribution of mostly female carers in this country.

8.4.1. There is limited to no Government benefits spent on carers.

8.4.2. Carers Payment is very difficult to get.

8.4.3. Carers Allowance is barely helpful - approx. $70/week.

8.4.4. Taxation reductions do not improve cost of living to non-working carers who are working extremely hard.

8.4.5. Carers are forced out of work when disability supports are inadequate. This reduces taxes to government, reduces productivity, and leads to skilled worker losses - disability does not discriminate against certain professions.

8.4.6. Loss of family income leads to poverty and homelessness.

8.4.7. Carers don’t receive superannuation for a secure future.

8.4.8. Carers have increased risk of abuse but are stuck in their homes without options to leave due to financial insecurity.

8.4.9. Exhausted carers lead to increased use of health, mental health, child safety, housing and sometimes justice costs.

8.4.10. Carers are one of the largest contributors to GDP yet receive the least in return from Government.

8.5. The Government has a history of reclassifying rights as ‘welfare’

8.5.1. The Old Age Pension, earned through paying taxes, is no longer a pension.

8.5.2. Public Aged Care Placements are largely non-existent or extremely limited.

8.5.3. DVA support is no longer a right for service to country, but welfare.

9. The Government is effectively removing ‘support for life’

9.1. Support for Life was an ‘original intent of the scheme’ and is extremely at risk in the new legislation, particularly on the whim of a NDIS Minister who has complete carte blanche to change any aspect of the legislation at any time.

9.2. The NDIS was supposed to prevent the constant need to ‘prove’ your disability or ‘re-tell’ your traumatic history.

Submission 187

9.3.

The NDIS started out accepting clinical evidence in short reports, which quickly evolved to medicolegal report requirements at great expense as NDIS Planners continuously said, ‘not enough evidence’ and NDIS frequently changed the goalposts. Many therapists have reported working extensively for free to minimise costs of reports while working many more hours than they bill.

9.4.

The NDIS Minister – admitted NDIS Planners don’t read therapist reports, blamed therapists for writing ‘too long’ reports – yet it was the NDIS that drove the trend to longer and longer reports at increasing cost compared to progress reports or less frequent Functional Capacity reporting requirements by NDIS.

9.5.

Long delays for NDIS Determinations, particularly of urgent Change of Circumstance applications, has led to some NDIS Participants dying before they received the outcome. I doubt this has been investigated.

9.6.

The Government has continuously reduced NDIS Plans for some cohorts such that they effectively lose their ‘supports for life’ due to funding constraints along with increasing prices of services (except therapies), despite there being clear evidence there was no decrease in support needs.

10.

The Governments increasing push for Participants to seek mainstream supports and is requiring undisclosed ‘treatments’ to be attempted before accessing the NDIS, regardless of whether they are accessible, appropriate or affordable.

10.1.

The new legislation strengthens limits on NDIS responsibilities when other agencies are involved – with no obligation on NDIS to work in concert with, or collaboratively with, those systems for optimal outcomes for Participants. This means the legislation is only about cost-cutting, not Participants.

10.2.

The new legislation does not allow remote or regional locations with no services, or lack of financial affordability, to be an excuse for not engaging in treatments they deem as required before NDIS Access is granted.

10.3.

While many insurance schemes tend to have a caveat that states that another scheme is responsible for services instead of them, ‘whether that scheme provides that support or not’ – given the complexity and risk that is frequently faced by NDIS Participants or people with disabilities, it is incumbent on the NDIS to conduct an independent and thorough risk assessment regarding that participant before refusing supports, excluding participants, or reducing NDIS Plan funding and supports. If changes are made more globally to a whole cohort of NDIS participants, an independent risk assessment should be completed.

10.4.

There is mention in the legislation that Specialist reports indicating a treatment is not appropriate/is contraindicated MAY be considered – at their discretion. Clinical opinion should override NDIS Determinations in this case.

10.5.

NDIS and the Legislation needs to be transparent about what treatments prospective NDIS Participants must complete, and these treatments must be equitably accessible with regard to location, financial means, religious

Submission 187

and cultural beliefs, medical appropriateness, and also needs to address issues around Applicants not having evidence of past treatments due to time passed, not being given a report, loss by fire or relationship breakdown, or any other number of reasons due to ‘life’.

10.6.

NDIS and therefore the Government has not been meeting its obligations regarding interagency collaboration, and this will continue under this new legislation.

10.7.

Often these so-called mainstream supports do not exist or cannot be accessed due to exclusion criteria. The NDIS does not care now and will double down on this with the new legislation.

10.8.

The Government has attempted to re-label Capacity Building Supports and other supports as ‘health system responsibility’, ‘education responsibility’, ‘child safety responsibility’ or ‘housing responsibility’ without any attempt to work WITH those systems to ensure the NDIS Participant does not fall through the gaps in systems. There is nothing in this legislation to address this.

10.9.

Re-labelling supports as ‘not NDIS responsibility’ contributes to poor outcomes for NDIS Participants, which the NDIS then seeks to blame elsewhere. It also now forms part of the legislation to increase options to exclude participants.

10.10.

The NDIS operates as if they have do not have a duty of care not to harm NDIS Participants, when refusing NDIS Supports or NDIS Access or expelling NDIS Participants from the NDIS, when mainstream services do not exist (e.g. GP Mental Health Management Plans cannot be used for Autism for Psychology access; or removal of children from NDIS Early Intervention despite no other supports being available in the community).

10.11.

The NDIS has never to date, and will continue to not provide, appropriate transitionary support between schemes, or during plan funding changes, to ensure the ongoing support during transitions. Changes to plans or being exited from the NDIS is abrupt, often less than 24 hour’s notice, with no transitionary support or funding.

11. The Government ’s lack of transparency without means to compel it.

11.1.

Transparency is essential to

• maximise ‘buy in’ of stakeholders,
• enable genuine co-design on this proposed legislation,
• ensure Participant and Provider safety,
• be held accountable,
• be evidence-based,
• ensure unbiased legislation, rules, guidelines and instruments,
• ensure human rights, rights to appeals, and procedural justice.

11.2.

The Government has not been transparent regarding

• Why they have abandoned the NDIS Review recommendations
• Why they haven’t accepted recommendations from Disability Royal Commission
• Planned NDIS reforms, eking out tidbits occasionally with many grey areas they refuse to clarify for the affected stakeholders,

Submission 187

11.2.4.

Planned legislative changes, which appear to have been planned well in advance of public notification, without meaningful consultation, let alone genuine co-design, and without sufficient time to respond to consultations,

11.2.5.

Releasing of relevant investigations, internal and external communications and reports, or so-called ‘independent’ analyses and reports,

11.2.6.

Plans for NDIS pricing given their role as market stewards who should be providing ample notice to Providers of pricing changes

11.2.7.

The release of the Independent Pricing Report that remains hidden.

11.2.8.

Any analysis of legal implications of the proposed NDIS legislation,

11.2.9.

Any internal or independent or legal risk assessments that have been completed from the Disability Community and NDIS Participant perspectives,

11.2.10.

Disclosure of the beneficiaries of government funding and contracts with the proposed reforms (e.g. preferred providers that result in smaller providers closing),

11.2.11.

Documentation requested via FOI that is increasingly redacted or refused, to avoid scrutiny, accountability and justice.

11.3.

The Government should not have the right to enforce Non-Disclosure Agreements on the organisations and individuals with which they secretly or overtly meet to discuss legislation changes.

11.4.

The Government should be transparent about ‘who gets a seat at the table’ to ensure procedural fairness in developing the new legislation with genuine co-design with a broad range of representatives from the disability community.

11.5.

The Government’s growing use of refusals and redactions for Freedom of Information applications regarding NDIS related activities and reforms prevents the public and media from holding them accountable.

12.

The Government’s use of phrases such as ‘over-diagnosis’, ‘return to the original intent of the scheme’, ‘mild to moderate developmental delay and autism’, ‘fraud’, ‘grifters’, ‘rorters’, ‘scoundrels’ etc. are unfounded, non-evidence based, misinformation, and has incited widespread public suspicion and hatred of people with disabilities and NDIS Providers.

The Labor Government’s use of specific narratives and phrases (recommended by Redbridge Group as ‘palatable’ to the public to engender support for NDIS cuts), which have been repeatedly used in mainstream media articles, to justify NDIS legislative reform and NDIS funding cuts that directly affect and harm NDIS Participants based on:

12.1.

Claims that widespread ‘Fraud’, ‘grifters’, ‘rorters’ (both Participants and Providers) are taking taxpayers money/costing too much

Submission 187

12.2.

Claims of over-diagnosis of Autism by Allied Health Professionals and Specialists to ‘Level 2’ to access NDIS funding

12.3.

Claims that children with ‘mild to moderate developmental delay and autism’ do not require support via NDIS Early Intervention, and that this ‘wasn’t the original intent of the scheme’, downplays the value of early investment for reducing or eliminating long term NDIS costs in adulthood.

12.4.

Claims that NDIS Early Intervention was not ‘the original intent of the scheme’ ignores that Early Intervention was always the intent of the scheme as per 25.

12.4.1.

Insufficient time has passed to reap the benefits of Early Intervention investment.

12.4.2.

NDIS was rolled out very slowly to a relatively small number of Participants from 2013. Children who did access the scheme in 2013 were likely in the 3–6-year-old age group (cut off was 7 years of age to exit Early Intervention), so now they would be 16-19 years old.

12.4.3.

At 16-19 years old, there is a significant life transition of leaving school, which is more challenging for children with disabilities than typical peers. Further investment is required, and was easily anticipated, to assist with transitioning to tertiary study, employment, disability employment or volunteering.

12.4.4.

The misleading claim has resulted in children already being removed from NDIS at pace, while ‘Thriving Kids’ (which will received significantly less funding) is not even operational yet, and plans to removes therapy for evidence-based natural environment interventions, in favour of parental education, overloading childcare workers and teachers, and generic one-size-fits-all group programs.

12.4.5.

The lack of investment in Thriving Kids compared to NDIS Early Intervention will undoubtedly lead to much greater future costs and more young adults attempting to enter the scheme. Of course this will be prevented by tighter eligibility requirements, funding cuts to NDIS, and caps on Participant numbers.

12.5.

Claims that most children (160,000 being removed to transition to non-existent Thriving Kids) have ‘mild to moderate developmental delay and autism’ are not evidence-based.

12.5.1.

The DSM 5 does not describe Autism by these terms.

12.5.2.

These Levels were never meant to be used to determine supports or funding, and do not indicate Autism ‘severity’. These terms (mild to moderate) are very misleading.

12.5.3.

An Autistic person may need minimal support in a safe environment such as home, representing Level 1.

12.5.4.

The same Autistic person may present as Level 3 and require very significant support in challenging environments, such as shopping centres or school, or during significant life transitions such as starting school, high school, tertiary study, volunteering or employment (Level 3).

Submission 187

12.5.5.

While this scenario can lead that person receiving a diagnosis of Autism with an ‘average’ of Level 2, which grants automatic access to NDIS in the current legislation, functional capacity and support needs are still independently assessed (currently by Allied Health Professionals), which then determines funding.

12.5.6.

Autism levels alone should never determine funding.

12.5.7.

Flexibility of when supports are used is essential based on environmental factors and fluctuating capacity.

12.6.

Claims NDIS is ‘Unsustainable’ and that NDIS growth and cost is a ‘budget blowout’ - NDIS expenditure returns $2.25 to the economy for every single $1.00 spent. This is a huge benefit to the economy with massive returns.

12.6.1.

It appears the Government’s continued focus on Autistic people causing the ‘cost blowout’ of NDIS is misleading, discriminatory and may be misfeasance

12.6.2.

Significant NDIS Early Intervention investment was the ‘original intent of the scheme’ but has been marketed otherwise by Labor.

12.6.3.

SIL and SDA costs are the biggest NDIS expense per Participant and possibly for the scheme as a whole, which benefits larger Registered organisations who are placed in an optimal position to engage in significant fraud and negligence and harm of NDIS Participants due to their vulnerability given the damning findings of similar organisations in the Disability Royal Commission.

12.7.

Claims that the State and Territory Governments closed their disability services to create NDIS as ‘the only boat in the ocean’ when the move towards a Nationally Consistent Framework due to failures and inequitable access of State and Territory disability services - and the Government wants us to return to that? And block funding that doesn’t meet the individualised needs of NDIS Participants, and will create more ‘gaps’ for NDIS Participants to fall through?

12.8.

Claims that standardised assessments or algorithm use to determine NDIS plan funding is ‘fairer’, ‘consistent’, rather than individualised assessments with human oversight or acceptance of the objective clinical assessment and advice of qualified Allied Health Professionals and Specialists.

12.9.

Claims that the Support Needs Assessment tool being developed into an algorithm-based assessment, by modifying assessments such as I-CAN and CIQ-R, is ‘evidence-based’, when it is not.

12.10.

Claims that ‘provider registration’ will improve NDIS Participant safety, quality of services and outcomes for Participants has no evidence-base.

12.10.1.

Registered Providers have also committed fraud and harmed participants.

12.10.2.

Registered Providers have direct access to NDIS Participant funds with no human oversight – unlike Unregistered Providers who have oversight by Participants and Plan Managers.

12.10.3.

NDIS has introduced automatic artificial intelligence scanning of incoming invoices for all invoices - however, if an invoice has no

Submission 187

errors and falls within Participant budgets, it can easily pass without scrutiny.

13. Claims that funding for Social and Community plan funding is too much and needs to be cut by 50 percent defies findings from the Disability Royal Commission: 13.1.1. risk of harm to Participants stuck at home or living in institutionalised or SIL-like housing, 13.1.2. risks social isolation, reduced wellbeing, abuse, and increased use of Federal, State and Territory funded services outside NDIS, for NDIS Participants, carers/families, and former small/sole NDIS Provider employees/owners due to bankruptcy and business closures. 13.1.3. risks loss of employment and income, and increased reliance on Centrelink payments, for NDIS Participants, carers/families, and former small/sole NDIS Provider employees/owners due to bankruptcy and business closures, 13.1.4. risks NDIS Participants not being able to attend appointments, tertiary study, work/volunteering, family and friends’ social activities, community social activities, advocacy, social groups, therapy groups, or doing the mundane everyday activities in the community that non-disabled people take for granted and do daily. An average of 6-7 hours per week on weekdays only ($26,000), and much less hours if utilised on weekday evenings or weekends or for respite.

14. Claims that therapy providers in NDIS are not improving Participant function or Social and Community Participations. See 13 above.

15. Claims that ‘diagnosis will not be required’ to access Thriving Kids and NDIS. 15.1.1. The proposed NDIS Legislation is suggesting that diagnosis is not required for NDIS Access or NDIS Plan Funding to be determined 15.1.2. While this appears to address the above scenario of automatic access based on diagnosis, this is a Government policy choice with the primary aim of cost containment by making it easier to deny access to very vulnerable prospective NDIS Participants with significant support needs.

16. The proposed NDIS Legislation is suggesting that environmental and contextual factors need not be considered as part of NDIS Support Needs Assessments – which will severely understate, and therefore under fund, Participant NDIS Plans leading to severe risks/death.

17. Claims that Employment is not NDIS responsibility. 17.1.1. Government funded Employment Services do not fund Support Workers that enable attendance at Employment Skills services, Disability Employment Services, Education facilities to gain qualifications, or their place of Employment where Support Workers enable productive participation. 17.1.2. It is widely known that Disability Employment Services organisations contracted by the Government were NOT

Submission 187

achieving sustainable study or employment outcomes for people with a disability. No meaningful alternatives are on offer that has proven to achieve better outcomes than NDIS.

It is also interesting that both the United Kingdom and United States of America are using extremely similar narratives and phrases to justify cuts to government funded services for people with disabilities, to create narratives around over-diagnosis of Autism, and to introduce greater ‘controls’ and ‘surveillance’ of people with disability, along with the erosion of privacy and rights.

Also interesting is that the UK, USA and Australia are all doing this concurrently over the same period, as if they are colluding on some joint neoliberal agenda.

Some Australian, UK and USA articles/research showing how Australia, UK and USA are ‘marketing’ Autism to the public as too costly, over-diagnosed and over-using Government funded services while Government funding contracts:

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/07/adhd-autism- overdiagnosis-wes-streeting UK article (8 December 2025, John Harris, The Guardian)
• https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/09/advocate-autism-wave-misinformation US article 24 September 2025 (Efua Andoh), Correcting Misinformation About Autism - points to US Administration misinformation and policy shifts that create stigma, justify surveillance, and undermine crucial care.
• https://www.autism.org.uk/blog/challenging-misinformation-about-autism-using- evidence-to-correct-false-claims UK article 9 March 2026 (Dr Judith Brown, Head of Autism Evidence and Research, National Autistic Society)
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4232964/ US research, Gernsbacher, Dawson and Goldsmith, Three Reasons Not To Believe In An Autism Epidemic 2005 – an older article that has already addressed this false narrative of an ‘autism epidemic’.
• https://hmri.org.au/news-and-stories/the-real-story-behind-rising-adhd-and- autism-diagnoses/ Australian Article 18 March 2026 (Hunter Medical Research Institute, The Real Story Behind Risking ADHD and Autism Diagnoses)

Doubts about how GENUINE Labor and LNP supported NDIS legislation reforms:

Concurrent ‘reforms’ in United States of America and United Kingdom using remarkably similar narratives to justify disability funding cuts and legislative reforms, with some narratives being exactly the same, seems farfetched not to at least consider there is collusion between the countries for an unclear agenda.

1. ‘Fraud’, ‘Over-diagnosis’, ableist statements such as describing autism as a ‘brain disorder’ or ‘illness’ rather than neurodivergence, or describing autism and developmental delay as ‘mild, moderate and severe’ while implying that they don’t need as much support as they’ve been getting or diagnosis is an excuse to not ‘try’, ‘unsustainability’, ignoring the real reasons for increased diagnosis rates of autism.

Submission 187

Data from Analysis of Australian Government Expenditure and outcomes for NDIS Integrity Measures (Quickclaim)

https://quickclaim.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/NDIS-Fraud-Crackdown-Spending-and-Outcomes-1.pdf This document states the following expenditure over time, but qualifies in a footnote the actual spending on NDIS/NDIA, not including expenditure on NDIS Quality and Safeguards and Services Australia (NDISQSC), is a total of $495.6 million to date, ot including proposed funding in the 2025.

2.1.$

$26.5 million initial investment to investigate fraud and non-compliance (compliance pilot program, 2021-2022 to NDIA)

2.2.$

$58.5 million allocated in 2022-2023 ($126.3 million multi-agency)

2.3.$

$48.3 million for 2023-2024 to NDIA

2.4.$

$160.7 million for 2024-2025 for NDISQSC

2.5.$

$89.9 million for 2024-2025 for NDIA

2.6.$

$110.4 million for NDIA in December 2024

2.7.$

A further $151.0 million for the fraud program for NDIA

2.8.$

$17.1 for maintaining the integrity workforce for 2025-2026 to NDIA.

2.9.$

A total of $495 million is cited for NDIS only, but the report states $747.7 million was spent on NDIS, NDISQSC and Services Australia from 2021- 2024,with an additional $168.1 million proposed for 2025-2026. More may be committed in subsequent years.

2.10.$

Add the cost of Redbridge Group’s services to create the ‘fraud’ narrative, $495 million grows to $895 million spent to date on NDIS fraud, not including NDISQSC or Services Australia.

2.11.$

Add the cost of NDIA’s own errors from a 2023-2024 review found incorrect debts were raised and had to be repaid (which would have cost money to administer accusations of fraud debt and repayments) which was $145,000. The total cost of fraud administration is now $895,145,000.

Compare this to recovered funding from fraud:

2.12.$

Short Term Accommodation provider non-compliance (this is not fraud specifically) $132 million

2.13.$

Operation Pegasus – 3 individuals convicted - $575,700

2.14.$

Tilbury case reparation order $214,086

2.15.$

Forecast savings announced in 2024 are not included as these savings have not been realised.

2.16.$

So, after spending $895,145,000, only $132,790,056 has actually been recovered to date.

Some quotes from this document:

2.17.“Enforcement activity has also surged. The FFT has initiated over 500 investigations and referred over 50 individuals for prosecution, resulting in high-profile convictions and jail sentences.” (pp 1)

2.18.“The ANAO also identified a failure of accountability. It noted that the NDIA “has not provided reporting against these [savings] commitments to the government or the Disability Reform Ministerial Council”. This suggests the agency responsible for the crackdown is not being fully transparent about

Submission 187

“its own performance against the commitments it made to secure funding.” (pp 6) 2.19. “The core argument is that the government’s intense focus on fraud, while\n”vitally important for the integrity of the NDIS,“ is “overemphasised” in the\npubli c debate , “not a major contributor to meeting current savings targets” , and “unlikely to make a significant dent” in the NDIS’s overall cost growth.“ (pp 7) 2.20. However, only 24 people have been successfully convicted to date. https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/senator-the-hon-jenny- mcallister/media/another-jail-term-for-a-ndis-fraudster-after-fraud-fusion- taskforce-investigation?language=en 3. ‘Unsustainability’ 3.1. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2024/07/27/ndis- media-strategy-briefing-given-before-review-finished - Australian article (27 July 2024, Rick Morton, The Saturday Paper). It has been confirmed via FOI requested by Rick Morton that ‘fraud’, ‘restrict eligibility’, or ‘restrict the amount of support high-need participants would receive’ were narratives designed by Redbridge Group for Labor at a cost of $400 million to identify the most ‘palatable’ reasons to cut NDIS funding to Participants, and that Redbridge Group was commissioned by Labor before the NDIS Review conducted by Bruce Bonyhady was even completed. 3.2. See point 2 above – Analysis of Australian Government Expenditure and outcomes for NDIS Integrity Measures (Quickclaim) https://quickclaim.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/NDIS-Fraud- Crackdown-Spending-and-Outcomes-1.pdf 3.3. NDIS is cashflow positive for the Australian Economy, as per the Per Capita report found here - https://percapita.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2021/11/NDS_031121_per-capita-report.pdf